In over 10 years of working in the world of higher education, the world I love, I have noticed a tendency among some graduate students (and amateur intellectuals) who seem to feel they “lose something” if they are genuinely impressed with a piece of scholarship. Instead, they apparently believe that the best way to showcase their brilliance and gain attention is to tear down idols. The more dramatically, the better. We have witnessed this kind of rhetoric on this board in the past few days.

Tearing down an idol can be energizing. But in fact this is the simplest analytic exercise one can do, because no argument is ever perfect. Every piece of work has flaws, blind spots, weaknesses. And it is easy to find one problem, magnify it, and insist that this one problem collapses the piece’s entire scaffolding. If so inclined, any person of reasonable intelligence could without too much effort "eviscerate" the work of most philosophers and social or cultural theorists. It’s just not that difficult. It is also easy to be derogatory, dismissive, and snarky.

When I'm working with a grad student who wants to flex their intellect by “hating on” a star in our field, I encourage them to keep the focus on the work and to be conscious of their tone. There is energy in hate. And this energy, well directed, may raise important questions and reveal weaknesses of this luminary’s research, weaknesses that perhaps need to be addressed for our field to progress. Insightful criticism is an important part of knowledge building in any field.

It’s also important for students to learn that academe has established channels for leveling different kinds of criticisms. The kinds of criticisms that are appropriate to level in public, say at a conference, are different from those that might be offered in a blind review. The important thing is to distinguish the values of our community so that students can present their critique in a way that empowers them and their ideas-- in other words, for their ideas to be considered legitimate and for them to gain credibility.

This information is specific to academe but I think the larger lessons bear out on this board. So I pass along lessons that I got from my mentors. It’s common sense, but can be uncommon in practice. At the same time, following it has helped me enjoy a decade-long career at an elite institution in an extremely competitive field. Here are the three basic lessons:

1) We are all members of a community. Careers are long, scholarly communities are small, and nobody likes an asshole. Lesson: Don’t be an asshole.

2) It is short-sighted and stupid to make enemies among potential colleagues. Everybody is a potential colleague. Lesson: Be a good colleague to everybody.

3) And most important, in the end, your reputation is not made by tearing down. It is made by what you create, what you build, what you contribute. Lesson: Create, build, contribute.

It may be helpful for those of us who want to engage with Tom Riskas and his ideas to consider orienting toward one another and the work in ways that are consistent with these basic values. If members of the community cannot do so, it’s clear that Tom won’t participate here. And that would be a great loss for us all.

I applaud those values. I will adopt them to use elsewhere, if you don't mind. They also work well for this forum (as well as the main board). It is already written in the board guidelines to "attack [or discuss] the idea, not the person".

As I asked in a post I wrote here recently, why would an author subject themselves to attacks? Why would anybody? Attacks, belittling comments, sarcasm, demeaning remarks do not encourage discussion. It's not only an author or other invited participant that flees from such an unpleasant environment. I don't enjoy such negative exchanges and I'm sure many others feel the same. How many come here for such downers? Few, I'd guess.

It's always worth remembering that many people who read and post here are "recovering" from negative experiences in Mormonism and even in other similar arenas. That is a big reason why some of the board rules exist and why positive exchanges are more "therapeutic" in this forum. Even if there is disagreement it doesn't have to be nasty or personal.

I've already stated on the main board in the preliminary exchanges about DM that there are statements with which, as a Christian, I disagree. However, I had no expectation of having to enter into very negative or personal arguments or nasty exchanges with anybody because of that, especially with the author. I know from the outset that I am going to likely be in the distinct minority and that I will disagree with Tom on some of his conclusions. I'd like to air out those topics but not if I need to bring my boxing gloves or Kevlar vest along with me.

I appreciate the opportunity to talk to the book's author. I appreciate the fact that he is willing to take the time. He has already helped me out by giving me a footnote reference in response to some of my previous comments. I absolutely appreciate that he took the trouble to send me a copy of his book, gratis, and that he dealt with the hassle of mailing it to a foreign country for me.

I don't intend to use him as a punching bag and I know he will return the favour, to me, and to all who post with respect. That doesn't mean they can't put his ideas through the wringer.

This morning I was listening to a Scottish MP talking on the radio about the disrespect with which many constituents treat their MPs (and hey, these are people who may actually deserve to be disrespected; that does not go for Tom, an author who graciously accepted a direct invitation to show up here). This MP said that, unlike some of his colleagues in Parliament, if a constituent is impolite to him, he responds with the same lack of courtesy to them. He said he is not in place to be treated badly by any passing person who holds MPs in general in contempt. The MP said that they should not feel the same way about specific MPs in person [if the MP doesn't deserve it]. He said that some of his constituents get a big surprise when he responds to them in kind (if they have been impolite to him) by saying that they're being an ass and he has no duty to treat them respectfully.

Anyhow, it made me think of Tom and this forum and some of the exchanges that have occurred. I absolutely agree that his participation is a great boon to us and I hope it continues.

Meanwhile, the least we can do, you'd think, is adopt the values mentioned in the OP, which really is the way we're expected to conduct ourselves at RfM anyway. I think the stories of the duelling pistols at dawn around here are greatly exaggerated. Most of the time, participants remember that you never know who is "in recovery" and that it is advisable to treat each other with courtesy, if not kindness. It doesn't mean we have to pull our punches about what we think, especially when we're involved in exchanging ideas. It just means we don't have to decimate the other guy to get a momentary thrill. Common courtesy. Is that too much to ask? (I hope not!)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/18/2013 06:50PM by Nightingale.

I think you're partly wrong. Riskas has already expressed his displeasure at challenging (and interesting) threads - at least one where he indicated he was losing interest.

It's my observation that Riskas has mocked or derided those who disagree with him.

As you point out, it's all too easy to take most anything apart. If that's the purpose of an author's work, he shouldn't be surprised to be the recipient. Personally, I think that's a crucial part of the conversation. Sometimes it might be abrasive.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/18/2013 08:21PM by thingsithink.

An opportunistic tear-down of a person's work, particularly a mean-spirited one, and a thorough deconstruction of a phenomenon I see as two different things. There's no reason scholars who perform analytic deconstructions should expect to be personally attacked. But sometimes they are, and really anybody who puts themselves out there will be attacked sometime. It's never pleasant, and thick skin is good skin as far as I'm concerned.

Agreed. My point was that Riskas rejected discussions that were not personal attacks.

thingsithink Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Agreed. My point was that Riskas rejected
> discussions that were not personal attacks.

He took the trouble to respond to some of my concerns.
True, Tom did not allow himself to get very far sidetracked
in those responses -- but I didn't see him rejecting any
discussion out of hand. I am not a student of Philosophy,
so naturally we had little to talk about on that score.

Also, I am not a modern Mormon who carries around with him
a massive amount of church-imposed beliefs -- and not even
a Christian. So, again, we had little to talk about when
it came to a personal application of his methodology.

We did talk about the limits of probable successful application
of what Tom calls Deconstruction. But he was not much interested
in theorizing whether it could be applied to non-religious
atheists, and I do not blame him. By not taking up that topic,
I can see that Tom is not really interested in confronting
atheist religionists either. Although he devotes a few
paragraphs in his book to that idea, I suppose he understands
that his philosophical underpinnings and his proposed method
are not automatically transferable to Daoists, Unitarians, etc.

So, with philosophy, method and limits disposed of, I cannot
fault Tom for "rejecting" the other side issues that I was
meandering into. He is wise to stick to his purposes and we
shall eventually see how he handles a peer who can engage
him squarely upon the factors Tom himself believes are important.

UD

I agree with the original statement completely. In addition to "be a good colleague," I might add that people should try to show compassion and empathy toward those who they don't see eye to eye with. Mormonism gives some people a nasty superiority complex and it seems to stick with some individuals long after they leave the church. And yet at the same time, these individuals frequently attack church members for the bigotry that they have because of their superiority complex, never realizing that they themselves have the same problems and perpetrate the same acts on others.

The RFM would be a much nicer place if everyone would try to treat those who are sincere, but perhaps a little misled with a little compassion and empathy.

"Good. Use your aggressive feelings, boy. Let the hate flow through you." -Emperor Palpetine.

While drawing a comparison to sith lords is a bit ludicrous, I admit, I think it aligns well with "Community Values"

Hollywood has for years been a reflection of our growing community values.

I agree with DarkFem.
While I think there is definitely value in showing flaws, it depends on audience and motive.

If I think someone is largely right, I will still show them their flaws, but I will try to do so privately & respectfully that they may strengthen their argument which I view as largely correct.

If I think someone's flaws do, in fact, render their argument moot or illogical, I will point them out, and I will likely do so publicly... but I do try to do so respectfully to not make any future collaboration/agreement/friendship unlikely.

Using an angry or disrespectful tone is not off the table, but it boils down to my motivation. If I have engaged many times with a person, and I am wholly ignored, I may escalate to a shocking or disrespectful tone, merely to catch their attention. Sometimes it is the only way to start a 2-way conversation (by egging them on, prodding a response so they can attain that succulent "last word")

...but jumping immediately to assholery is unwise, and is a mistake that is made most commonly by the young or disproportionately immature.

Let's communicate effectively as mature, rational, and itelligent beings.

"Let's communicate effectively as mature, rational, and itelligent beings."

Sounds great. And if that doesn't work, "let's all be assholes."

I love how you use assholery as a rational tactic. For me, it's an unconscious reaction probably based on something completely unrelated. If only I had such command of my character defects - I'd be truly formidable given my wide selection of tools. ;)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/19/2013 10:56AM by thingsithink.

Yes, well, assholery can be hard to tame (sublimate?) and redirect, believe me I know that personally. I guess that's why my mentors felt the need to educate me.

thingsithink you're already pretty formidable and not assholic as far as I can tell :)

The more I think about it, especially given the thoughtful feedback from posters above, it would be fun to write a collaborative paper on the uses of assholery on RfM!

I find my best work has been produced as a response to my harshest, nastiest critics.

Please bring it on. It makes me better.

And thanks.

Okay, fine, sounds like you know yourself.

Still, there is no reason why criticism needs to become "harsh" or "nasty" for people to do their "best work." Is this what you are suggesting here? Because you seem to be implying as much by the posturing in your post.

Unless a person's subjectivity is governed by abusive negative introjects, they usually don't respond productively to any kind of abusive environment.

The fact you seem to gain satisfaction from (and want recognition for) responding "well" to harsh, nasty critics is concerning.

To be clear, I draw a distinction between harsh and nasty criticism and incisive and challenging criticism.

What I want is the best possible product.

I know my best reply briefs are written after my opponent has done the best to rip my initial brief to shreds (which is his/her job).

My best publishable material comes after a conference paper where others have had the chance to have at it and took it.

Do I want to publish something that could have been better if others had just had the balls to show me my blind spots?

No.

Please just show me my blind spots as best you can, there's no prerequisite in my book that you be the world's most charming, personable and diplomatic interlocutor.

The core idea of the Socratic method is that others get to ask questions until you come up with an answer for which nobody can think of another question.

Different questioners have different personalities, do I want to lose out on what they can offer because of I don't like their personalities?

No.

Do I want to use my time figuring out if what I got back was "harsh and nasty criticism" or "incisive and challenging criticism."

No.

I want to take whatever I can get and use it as best I can.

Making nice nice just to make nice nice leads to bad scholarship. If you want to throw a tea party, then throw a tea party.

And if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 05/20/2013 10:51PM by lulu.

To be clear, nobody (and certainly not me) was advocating making nicey nice or pouring out tea for one another while munching on cucumber sandwiches with the crusts cut off.

The issue was that criticism does not include what are considered to be personal attacks, at least here at RfM.

Being courteous towards an invited author does not mean that we can't express honest opinions or considered criticism of his work. In fact, that is exactly what he is asking for (in numerous posts Tom lays this out).

I don't think this whole thing is intended to be an exercise in higher criticism in an academic environment, accessible only to the educated elite. Even though Tom has certain ideas about how he would like the discussion to go, or at least how he wishes to interact with it, he doesn't mean (I hope) that the discussion is closed to any particular set of RfMers (other than he hopes the participants will have read his book). If I have a disagreement with a statement or conclusion in the book I will express it, and explain the reasons for my opinion, but cannot pretend to be viewing it in the lofty heights of the theoretical or philosophical realms. I'm just going to state it in my own general education sort of way. If that's not good enough, then I'm on the wrong board altogether.

So, yeah, there will be disagreement, there will be criticism, but it will be about the ideas expressed in the book, not about the author personally.

I don't see how that is an invitation to a teddy bears' picnic rather than merely a courteous way to interact with an invited author, while still intending to deal honestly with the material in his book.

No "shredding" need occur.

I agree with everything you say until sentence 10.

It seems like for whatever reason you resist making the distinction between abuse and criticism. And you use a straw man to legitimate your refusal, implying for example that I am advocating "nice" behavior and therefore bad scholarship. Your implication is a not very veiled insult from one scholar to another.

Criticism does not equal abuse.

That is all.

I haven't seen any abuse or asshole-ary on this, maybe it was deleted before I tuned in.

Different people come across differently. Different people have different areas of expertise. Some people are more tangential than others. I being a tangential type but argue that tangents are one of the real sources of creativity. Some people's personal style is more combative than others.

I want to learn from all of them.

I've learned a shit load from Stak, Steven Benson and Dan Vogel, to name three, would not want to have been without anyone of them.

But if I got too hung up on the things about them I don't like, I'd have learned less or nothing. That would be my loss.

Sometimes collaboration is needed, sometimes not. Some people are collaborative some people aren't. Everybody has to lead with collaborative?

No, as a practical matter, everybody leads with who they are. Nobody has to fit a mold, that reminds me a religion I used to be apart of. Not everyone agrees, needs to or should when the horse is really, finally dead (and I won't digress into ever changing and disputed, not to mention, currently debated, issues of what constitutes death, have you noticed beating heart death getting more play lately?)

If you limit those you learn from to the collaborative type, you, well, limit who you are able to learn from. Bad choice.

All work needs to be shredded, if you want, I'll look up a quote from Susan Easton Black (yes, a Mormon, female, BYU professor) for you on that one. You end up with better work.

Corner off part of the rollicking internet with a part only for people who meet the cookie cutter collboral personal approach and they are the only people I'll work with in the future? That's not how knowledge advances in my opinion.

Which is not to say that I don't love tea and finger sandwiches, cucumbers . . . meh

lulu - frightened that thinksithink and I are agreeing on something ;)



Edited 11 time(s). Last edit at 05/21/2013 04:36AM by lulu.

Hi lulu. Thanks for your response.

You and I seem to agree on the basics, but I want to respond a few of your points.

While it’s true that many academics, myself included, generate single-authored texts, everything I write is the result of years of learning and collaboration. Like you, I have learned a lot from having my work “shredded,” and in fact just finished “shredding” a thesis. The goal, as you suggest, is to create not only a stronger product but to cultivate a better thinker. There is, however, an important difference in my mind between shredding an argument and shredding a person. I strive to embody that distinction in my interactions with students and colleagues, because it matters to me. If that is not a distinction you think matters, that’s your choice.

There is no singular way for knowledge to advance, and there's a deep literature in the social sciences showing that teams produce better knowledge -- in some circumstances. You must know that collaboration is the life-blood of the sciences. Most of the significant research discoveries and inventions of modern times have been made by teams of researchers, not individuals. Moreover, any researcher who sends a single-authored grant to the NSF or NIH would be laughed at. Your characterization of “cookie cutter” collaboration therefore seems facile and self-serving to me. And it has nothing to do with the justrob’s point.

Characterizing the “internet” as a singular “rollicking” place to me reveals a lack of knowledge about how communities emerge and function across this medium. The internet is in fact a multiverse of “imagined communities,” to use Benedict Anderson’s term, and every one develops its own relational norms and values. If you don’t believe me, spend some time on 4 chan, a place I study, the birthplace of Anonymous--where every poster is "Anon" and there is no institutional memory. Yet in even the most “free-wheeling” ‘hood of the internet, you will note distinct values and codes of conduct, some regulated tacitly or organically by participants and some enforced by board moderators.

The point being that every community, virtual or real life, coalesces around a set of values that emerge from the shifting goals and functions of the community, whether individual participants recognize this or not. My goal in this thread was to open the door for a productive conversation about the kind of community values we want to enact here.

I recognize that we are not a traditional scholarly community. And I would not want potential participants with important questions and insights like Nightingale to feel marginalized. If I have done that by positioning my post that way, I’m very sorry. That surely wasn’t my intention.

In an imagined community like this one, though, having a self-conscious conversation about the kind of community we want to be will enable us, together, to create something good, something we can all have a stake in.

But that will begin with understanding, as Tom outlines in his most recent post.

C'mon people, we don't need endless paragraphs about how best to get along on the playground. Seriously. We get it, Tom and some others are sensitive about ad hominems. Okay. Now how 'bout discussing the book? Any of the participants have a question for Tom? A disagreement? Something?

Some of us (I'm guessing) that have not read the book, and so per Tom's request cannot post on this forum, are nonetheless lurking so as to determine if perhaps we may want to read the book in the future.

Might there perhaps be less posturing about feelings and more discussion about ideas? Please? After all, this forum isn't about lulu or ng or jr or you, Darkfem. It's about a book. How about discussing that.

Thank you.

Human

(By the way, Darkfem, this guy certainly didn't want or need collaboration:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/05/twin-primes/

Well, there will be some discussion about the book - when more people have read it. In that case, to follow Tom's suggestion for how to discuss it in an organized manner, we will start with the beginning and proceed page by page to the end.

All of this is the preliminary set-up, as frequently noted.

Meanwhile, some important things can come out of this. I am enjoying DF's posts. Especially interesting are the references to online communities.

It is more than ad homs that some people "don't like". It is the general snarkiness that some posters effect as part of their schtick, or something. If you enjoy that type of exchange, go for it, as far as it is allowed here. It's not everybody's style, or preference, which is pretty much what we're saying. The point is to include as many participants as possible. Why do some people want to try and frame the discussion in a different way than that? Including as many as possible would seem to be the best way to get the widest-ranging and best ideas.

We get that people like you want to do things your own way. How many times do you want to state that, or illustrate it? As DF has posted, that is not always the way to embrace community, in person or even on the Net. In this instance, who said it had to be a fight? And that's while we're waiting for folks to read at least the first few chapters. What next then? I'm starting to believe there is some pre-planned groundswell to sabotage the discussion before it gets going.

But nah. That would make me paranoid.

Right?

Um, that was the point of this thread.

But thanks for reminding me why we're here.

Darkfem Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>thanks for reminding me why we're here.

No problem. Look forward to it.

Cheers.

Human

Thanks, Human. The story of the math genius reinforces my point in at least two ways.

Darkfem said: "I recognize that we are not a traditional scholarly community. And I would not want potential participants with important questions and insights like Nightingale to feel marginalized. If I have done that by positioning my post that way, I’m very sorry. That surely wasn’t my intention."

Not at all, Darkfem. I haven't felt marginalized by any of your comments at all (unless I've missed some along the way). {{jk}}

If this were going to be a strictly "scholarly" community then a lot of us would be left out, not having the presumed prerequisites. However, I doubt that RfM would host such a restricted forum as this community seems more into providing an all-inclusive environment. If the author and some readers wanted to be scholarly and exclusive, it would be easy enough to find a different venue for that.

My impression from the beginning was that the idea was for all readers who wished to discuss the book to gather here and do so. Undoubtedly, if the general trend of the discussion became too scholarly, some of us would naturally fade away.

I think it's going to be one of those things that we will find out soon enough once we start the formal discussion, when some of us have finished reading at least the first few chapters. At least in my case, that isn't going to be the fastest I ever got through a book. It's been a while since I stayed up into the wee hours to read Latin language (for medical terminology) and anatomy/physiology texts (for nursing) and math review/weights and measures (for drug calculations), not to mention works on biblical excavation and translation of ancient texts. It takes a while to get back into something heavier than general reading material.

Thanks, DF. I look forward to your participation.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/21/2013 07:08PM by Nightingale.

Darkfem posted:

__________________________________

"There is, however, an important difference in my mind between shredding an argument and shredding a person."

I didn't see any person(s) being shredded here.

While great things can arise from conflict, beating dead horses is far more common.
Collaboration, on the other hand, leads to more than a sum of the parts. Each triggers thoughts in the other, and something greater arises than could have come from a compendium of each's solitary work.

There is nothing morally wrong with criticism and negativity, but it is usually inefficient. Critiques can help a person to grow, but that increase will never equal the synergy that might been.

In my opinion, negativity should be controlled & limited to a level where it wont impede future collaboration. Sure, you can pass the buck to the "overly sensitive" person who now doesn't want to collaborate with you, but the fact is that you've lost a potential collaborator, regardless of where the fault may lie.

If this is a pattern in your life, you're the common component, and should tone it back. Why waste potential?
Weigh the risks and benefits: you may feel superior, or win an argument, etc... but that's chicken feed compared to any possible synergy that you're discarding.

It's rarely worth it.

Nicely put, jr. Your point about future collaboration and synergy is very well made. Thanks.

Your original post is full of life's most important lessons as far as I'm concerned Darkfem. Excellent.

When I was very young my great aunt told me to make sure to not fall into the trap many do of blowing someone else's candle out to make my own appear to burn brighter. For some reason, that really stuck with me and I think of it often as I observe human interactions.

There are two ways to let in the light of new knowledge. One is to smash the window and the other is to just open it. This thread has illustrated that well I think.

Beautifully said, Darkfem. Thank you.